Not all Russians are stupid: many (most?) understand that they are being lied to and some (especially the younger generations) are interested in reading independent sources. I think these services are for those people -- facts can be highly valuable (and worth jumping through the necessary hoops).
N=1, but ... a few months before Russia invaded Ukraine, I talked to a Russian girl at a party in Germany. She said she "voted with her feet" when she decided to move out of Russia. So she wasn't very Russia friendly. Moreover, young women are probably the most progressive demographic full-stop. Yet when I asked her about Ukraine, she repeated all the standard Russian government propaganda about an alleged NATO threat and stated that she was "neutral" on whether Russia should invade Ukraine. I was pretty shocked. If even young female expats think this way, what do older Russian men think? Perhaps she was a rare outlier. Or perhaps it's not an accident that so many Russians appear to continue to vote for Putin's party.
> Yet when I asked her about Ukraine, she repeated all the standard Russian government propaganda about an alleged NATO threat and stated that she was "neutral" on whether Russia should invade Ukraine.
For a recent emigre from a regime like Russia or Cuba, the mindset often is "things are real bad in the homeland in matters that I can see with my own eyes, but on what I can not see, I tend to believe the official narrative, because it's the only one I had access to." It can take years for a person to do all the necessary reading and research to adjust their worldview.
I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever. Angela Merkel is on record saying that the negotiated Minsk peace agreement was a complete sham.
"The US and its allies “simulated supporting the UN Security Council resolution” which endorsed the roadmap to peace while pumping weapons into Ukraine and “ignored all crimes committed by the Kiev regime … for the sake of a decisive strike against Russia,” she explained in a social media post on Thursday [1].
Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many years ago. Available on youtube.
Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?
How are you attempting to balance your point of view against the intense western government propaganda that you're exposed to?
The problem is not weapons. The problem for Ukraine is they are still a Soviet-tier army, operating with Soviet-era tactics. It's not productive to ship them thousands of Abrams and F-16s if they do not understand how to operate these systems in a combined arms fight. They do not, and it takes a long time to become competent at this. So, a King of Battle war of attrition it is until either Ukraine can figure out how to do this or something truly catastrophic happens with Russian supply and morale. Or NATO directly enters.
> Merkel sagte der ZEIT: "Das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Sie hat diese Zeit auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht."
To me it implies that Russian designs on Ukraine were understood quite some time ago, and the "buying time" to make Ukraine "stronger" was the counter to Russia's intention. That supposition about Russia's intentions has since been proven correct.
Russia may feel aggrieved that their goal of re-subsuming the independent former Soviet republics has been somewhat thwarted, but clearly that has been and still is their policy.
Its indeed the information i care about, not the implications for any narratives. Distortions and pollution of the information environment is just shortsighted and counterproductive. If you stop looking at facts in favor of narrative you are making yourself vulnerable for the inevitable self destructive corruption. Which can easily be manufactured, which both China and Russia are aware of.
"Angela Merkel is on record saying that the negotiated Minsk peace agreement was a complete sham."
No she didn't. That is Russian propaganda. Show me the Zeit article. All your sources are astroturfed Russian propaganda.
Your globalresearch.ca link gives you away. Anyone doubting it can go to the globalresearch front page and draw their own conclusions. Its a conspiracy theory site.
I list a few articles to give a flavor of globalresearch's conspiracy bent:
The “Great Zero Carbon” Conspiracy and the WEF’s “Great Reset”
Towards a Failed State under Kiev Nazi Regime
The Asinine Insanity of the ‘Climate Change’/C02 Hoax:
You would have more creditability if you took 2 mins to have found it.
> globalresearch.ca
Is certainly not a good source, linking people the original quotes to read for themselves would show some evidence you are not a conspiracy theory also, I hear there are a few going around.
That Zeit article has her saying the 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy Ukraine time. This is not precisely the same as her saying it was a complete sham; the agreement was a ceasefire and ceasefires are generally understood to provide both sides with an opportunity to lick their wounds; ceasefires aren't peace treaties, they're only temporary stoppages of wars. For Merkle to say the ceasefire was buying Ukraine time isn't a contradiction.
Still, you dug up the relevant article so, vouched.
This is pure strain Russian propaganda, nothing you have shared here backs up Putin's claims that NATO is some existential threat to Russia. Everything since the invasion of Georgia has shown Russia to be the aggressor on the world stage, countries like Ukraine that Putin considers to be owned by Russia are right to run to NATO for defense.
>> I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever.
NATO is not a threat to Russia by any objective measure. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries in Europe were unilaterally diarming themselves. Just compare the size and composition of UK, French or (West-)German military in 1980s and 2010s - reduction in everything by a factor of 5-10x with a continuing downward trend. This is why NATO is struggling to support Ukraine, former powerhouses like Germany have very little left to share. Over the past two years, Russia has lost 20 TIMES more (visually confirmed) tanks than the whole German army fields. And yet we're somehow supposed to believe that such tiny force could pose a credible threat against Russia.
A person with "cognitive empathy" might actually feel that the truth is exactly the opposite: NATO became so weak over time that Russia stopped fearing it, and became increasingly brazen in pursuing its imperialist goals.
We have by far the most destructive war in Europe since the WWII, whole cities wiped from the earth, civilians executed in mass graves, daily terror attacks on cities where millions live - and to this day NATO's response is what exactly? Sending obsolete tanks and wasting months discussing whether Ukraine deserves modern air defense systems to stop terror raids against civilians? Is this the power you consider an existential threat to Russia? Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?
Imho high probability its who ever is reacting to your post. Cognitive warfare today means its highly advantageous to exploit propaganda blind spots by dialing them up to 11 to create dysfunction and make your opponent look bad. Your post has all the hallmarks of being a caricature aimed at creating a reaction.
I am sorry if its your actual opinion, in that case you should consider that giving up on a functioning reality model in favor of narratives is a deeply counterproductive idea. Distortions and pollution of the information environment are ambivalent to the intention of its creation. Its just creating blindspots that get exploited by hostile entities.
You are, evidentially. Since your solution to this problem is WWIII.
You're simultaneously claiming that Russia has last 20x the tank inventory of Germany, and also that Russia is somehow also capable of "pursuing its imperialist goals", which I guess still include capturing Berlin.
This is just not how real politics work. This is the result of bad politics of power players with a lack of understanding. Putin himself even said he might be thinking about joining NATO some day. That is was due to a weakening NATO is an analysis completely detached from reality. This ignores what happened in Ukraine in the last few decades. It is a simple explanation, but most importantly a completely wrong one.
There is a reason why the relation today is much worse than it was 30 years ago.
>Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many years ago. Available on youtube.
Russia has also been vocal about this for decades. The CIA director summarized it rather well during his time as Ambassador in his "Nyet means Nyet" cable.
People are sensitive when it comes to the sovereignty of their home countries even if they're not particularly fond of their governments. When I lived in China a lot of young, laissez-faire, liberal minded people who were critical of the increasingly repressive culture were nonetheless allergic to any kind of foreign encroachment.
The attitude is largely that, "our government may suck, but it is ours", and when foreign countries are perceived as strangling their development, you'll turn even the most raging regime critic into a reluctant supporter. And of course they don't view NATO or the rules based order or what have you as some benevolent thing, but tools of power.
The idea anyone would attack Russia, with its countless nuclear weapons, is silly. Ukraine obviously wanted to join NATO to defend against Russia, not to attack it.
Is it indeed possible that the whole thing started in 2014 with whole "f the EU" shenanigans and "Biden being in on it"? And that that truth is suppressed here, and perhaps amplified over there?
> The United States is responsible for the war in Ukraine, and that's not Putin's
propaganda; it's just history
Which is obviously incorrect on its face, Putin claimed to invade Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to be liberated and is part of the Russian Empire, wrongly let go of by prior rulers of Russia. It is disgusting propaganda to lie and say the US or the west caused this war - Putin caused it, fullstop, that's it.
If you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", you'll see it's straight from the US playbook.
Sure, Putin started the war, and that was the whole point, poke and prod until they start a war. Lend money until they can't repay. Keep a country rubbelized so they won't unite against resource extraction. Replace democratically elected leaders with religious nutcases so you can have your way. It's the way of the empire. Ask Iranians, ask Panamanians, ask the people of East Timor.
Is it possible Ukraine isn’t entirely innocent? Sure we assume they are from our point of view, but that’s the nature of propaganda, how do you really know what is reality?
Also, there's nothing Ukraine could have done that would have made Russia's actions justified.
Finally, when you follow the Russian statements for a while, you notice that they are self-contradictory. This lets you disregard their arguments as pure lies - the truth is not self-contradictory.
Not innocent of what!? Even Putin justifies the invasion by saying Ukrainian people want to be part of Russia. That is not justification for invading and killing them. Being skeptical of what you hear is one thing, abandoning reality to say “who knows, anything is possible” is another.
